tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post4956038984506287633..comments2024-03-10T21:44:15.133-04:00Comments on Adventures in Voluntary Simplicity: On Sexism: Women Should Know Their PlaceJackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-69120667028772814382009-07-14T04:48:23.393-04:002009-07-14T04:48:23.393-04:00This response is a tangent to a tangent to a tange...This response is a tangent to a tangent to a tangent...but the idea of a TV fast...well, I stopped regular watching while in college, never got a TV, and found that the hours spent in front of the screen were quickly filled with being outside, on my bike, walking the dog, and enjoying quality time with friends or even alone, reading, being creative, or watching a film. But I do think there are shows out there that are quality TV. And they can do something that some films cannot; they can continue to grow and develop, both through the plot and characters. If you haven't checked it out already, "Mad Men" has me hooked, largely because of the gender roles and social issues it explores.carissashantinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-83495063642986593462009-04-08T15:46:00.000-04:002009-04-08T15:46:00.000-04:00@Amy,As I mention above, I’m now getting to a poin...@Amy,<BR/><BR/>As I mention above, I’m now getting to a point where I can move away from the physical simplification towards a more internal process. Whether it is fear, sadness, etc…I guess I will have to find out as I start to interrogate myself.<BR/><BR/>@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I think you are on the right track. Getting a DVR was a good first step (no commercial watching for me) and allowed me to pick and choose programming. Now, it’s just a matter of finding good stuff to watch.<BR/><BR/>@Abigail,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Having enough empathy to try and see an issue from different perspectives is something that can be very healing. The kind of feminism you describe does not appeal to me as much as it once did. Feminism, to me, is breaking down walls that prevent women from achieving their own version of happiness. It was never about branding good or bad behavior and putting people into boxes. But, hey, that’s just an opinion.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-76088860041918281232009-04-08T15:31:00.000-04:002009-04-08T15:31:00.000-04:00@Anonymous,“I think the problem, Jack, is that you...@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>“I think the problem, Jack, is that you really haven't shown us more than perhaps fleeting moments in which you don't objectify women. Maybe there are lots of times when you deal with women on personal levels that reflect your deep understanding of them as individuals.<BR/><BR/>But that's not what you choose to share here. What you choose to share here, in regard to the women you encounter, is pretty uniform. And pretty sad.”<BR/><BR/>I think this a pretty good way to unpack things and the analysis is actually good. A couple of clarifications. First (and this is probably just a reflection of the limitations inherent in trying to convey an idea via comments on a blog), if there haven’t been that many instances in which I have NOT objectified women as you describe it is probably because the issue hasn’t really come up all that much and what is there on the blog IS, in fact sad. The relationship I have had with sex and sexuality in general over the past 6-8 years is definitely a topic I want to touch on but if there was ever any ‘objectification’ on this blog as you define the term, it must be seen in context (i.e., trying to evolve from certain patterns of behavior over a period of time as indicated in this post)<BR/><BR/>“Your actions do affect others, and they do send a message. I don't see that you understand that, beyond lip service.”<BR/><BR/>I agree, though as in my conversation with Steve, there is a difference between actions per se and allowing yourself to embrace your sexuality, which is natural.<BR/><BR/>“Get past the things. Look at how you treat and interact with people. That's a much bigger deal, ultimately, than how much your furniture cost.”<BR/><BR/>Right on. Trying my best to get there.<BR/><BR/>@Maitreya,<BR/><BR/>“Have you ever known a woman who was just a FRIEND? Not a sex partner, not an associate, not a mom. A friend? Have you ever bothered to speak to an unattractive woman?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, but only occasionally; ditto; and yes.<BR/><BR/>“I think you treat women the way you do because it is the only way you know how to interact with them.<BR/>And very often, the women you seem to interact with don't know any other way to interact with a man.<BR/>They EXPECT to be objectified because it is all they have ever known. They think that is how things are supposed to be, and so do you.<BR/>That is very sad.”<BR/><BR/>Great analysis. I think this gets us closer to the heart of this, though, again, I would be careful with the use of the word “objectified” for the reasons stated over and over above.<BR/><BR/>@Steve,<BR/><BR/>“For the record, I really hope I am not coming across as lecturing. I deeply believe in what I am saying, but fully understand that each person is finding their way.<BR/><BR/>I am not ‘demanding’ (as if I could) agreement. I am merely trying to flesh out an understanding of these things from a deeply Catholic perspective and sharing that as best I can.”<BR/><BR/>In no way shape or form are you coming across as lecturing, at least to me. As I have said before, do NOT stop commenting on stuff like this. Your perspective only adds to the richness of the commentary.<BR/><BR/>“No matter how shallow, you exchanged and shared in an experience with them.”<BR/><BR/>Ok, sure, that’s true, but that does not get us closer to undermining the analysis. Just because they saw me does not mean that being titillated is somehow wrong/inappropriate. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.<BR/><BR/>“You sure seem to have gone with the express intention of doing what you say you had no intention of doing above. :-) Maybe not to meet those particular girls, but you seemed intent on meeting girls LIKE them…any girls like them would have done. And that’s the problem...at that point they are mannequins performing for the men in the room…interchangeable…without any recognition of their person-hood.”<BR/><BR/>First, I don’t think what I said was inconsistent. Even if I wanted to see what was going on with that mechanical bull I still had no intention of meeting anyone or talking to anyone. Second, so what? Steve, let me be absolutely clear about this: attractive girls can be titillating to a heterosexual male. I don’t need to know who they are or even meet them to find someone attractive from afar. And it is absolutely natural for a man to find a woman to be a sexual being. Again, we are just going to have to disagree on this one as well.<BR/><BR/>“Should not have been titillated isn’t what I’d say…that’s impossible. If I were there, it would be unavoidable for me too.<BR/><BR/>What I am suggesting is that by being in that kind of place in the first place, you were asking to be sexually aroused by anonymous women. That is an act that contributes to the objectification being discussed...it didn't just happen by accident (or so it seems).”<BR/><BR/>And here is where we part ways yet again. As I mentioned in my prior comment to you, I just don’t think the kind of objectification you are describing is so fundamentally harmful to our society. To disallow it, or for a person to deny this part of their sexuality is MORE harmful than any effect it may have on society.<BR/>-------------<BR/>“’And here is where we differ further. Sex can, in fact, involve “taking from or using the other person.”’ <BR/><BR/>“I agree…it can…I am suggesting it shouldn’t. I've participated in both ethos under discussion. I do know what you are describing, and at least from my own experience, it is truly a pale imitation of what is possible in a sexual relationship.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it is not good for the other person…ever. It might feel unbelievably pleasurable, empowering, and a whole host of other positive things that apply to the short term. But in the long run it will never be good emotionally for either of the parties partaking.<BR/><BR/>You get that in other areas of your life (see your description at the beginning of this comment), but I think you have yet to apply the same thought process to sexuality.<BR/><BR/>Most people never break free from what you describe above.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, most people never break free from thinking about sex in terms you’ve laid out. <BR/><BR/>I'm suggesting the same applies to both areas, and the consequences are similar in both areas.”<BR/><BR/>--------------------------<BR/>Steve, I absolutely love your analysis here. Again, I haven’t gotten that far in this process. Thus far, I’ve focused on the physical side of simplification. The emotional/spiritual side is definitely on my sights, so can see where you are going with this. Who knows where this will all lead me.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-6121967536379349132009-04-04T18:07:00.000-04:002009-04-04T18:07:00.000-04:00[this is a rather lenghty yet quite interesting em...[this is a rather lenghty yet quite interesting email I received from Jill M. It is being published in its entirety.]<BR/>-------------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hi again Jack,<BR/> <BR/>First, I have to say "fair enough" with your evidence of the personal attacks. Good point. I mostly ignore the personal attacks in your comments because they seem to be more about the person writing the comment than they are about you and the issues being discussed. <BR/> <BR/>You asked me to unpack my comments about acceptance. I will do my best, but this is something that I am still working on, so take that as a disclaimer when you are weighing my credibility in this area (and don't hold any typos against me, this is "fun" writing... :) ). Lastly, I sent this as an email because it is a very long description. If you would like it to be posted as part of the discussion, I feel comfortable with you editing it for that purpose. Personally, I do not appreciate such lengthy posts in the comments that are for the whole group, thus I chose this route.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>I, too, have a hard time with self-acceptance. I believe most ambitious people struggle with it. I hesitate to assign this struggle specifically to any particular descriptive word, such as "ambitious" - but some people struggle with it, while others accept themselves more naturally. In my journey to accept myself, I have most often connected with others whose struggle for self-acceptance has pushed them (expressed by ambition) to achieve in ways that are measurable. Getting a law degree and fat salary...or staying the same weight you were as a high school athlete...having many/big/fancy materialistic possessions... Although I do not fall neatly into any of these categories, they are examples of where your path and mine might intersect. As such, I offer "ambitious" people as a sample group of people to represent those who, in lieu of self-acceptance, seek acceptance from others and rely on that acceptance for part or all of their self-validation.<BR/> <BR/>Since you mentioned you are struggling with what sounds to me like the beginning of a practice of self-acceptance, I will focus my comments to that part of my own journey. After a sob-story-quality break-up, I felt devastated. Although I had brought my own baggage to the relationship, the terms on which it ended left me feeling incredibly insecure in all areas of my life. Surprisingly, to me, I was certain I would find love again. But, I was unsure of success in my career, insecure about my intelligence, my instincts and my charming personality. I list these qualities and characteristics because they represent that which I value most. Perhaps what you value most and/or what you feel/felt insecure about is/was different. What is valuable is to identify what is important to you.<BR/> <BR/>Identifying what is important to you helps guide the practice of self-acceptance. Practice is the key word for this action, because like any useful skill, it requires practice to achieve proficiency and mastery in self-acceptance.<BR/> <BR/>Once you've identified what is important to you, note that you will keep identifying these qualities. Hopefully, over your lifespan, the list with shrink and grow, in relation to the circumstances of your life. Fluidity is a key to acceptance, though for most people who are used to setting their sights on a goal and then obtaining it (ambition rears its ugly head), fluidity is enigmatic at its best and infuriating at its worst. Fluidity is accepting that you cannot muster enough emotional energy to talk to your sister for three weeks, even though your "ideal" self has a wonderful relationship with her sister. Fluidity is calling her on at three weeks and a day, and asking her to accept that, too. You know it when you've got it, but it is not always clear how to regain it.<BR/> <BR/>The next step is to evaluate how you feel about yourself in relation to the qualities you've identified. Not how do think your parents/co-workers/ex-girlfriend/the Dalai Lama/your most admired mentor/etc feel about you in relation to these qualities. That kind of thinking is what has been holding you back. You have been striving to gain Mom's/Jenn's/Michael's/Rhonda's acceptance, but you don't share all of their values. (I am talking to myself now, so this might be a little bit different for you). What is important is to understand that the only standards you have to strive for are your own. Your closest friends/mentors/co-horts/family will accept you in spite of your flaws and in spite of differing values. If they do not, well, that is for you to decide what to do. But, until you know what your values are and understand how they are motivating your behaviors, you will only spin your wheels as far as self-acceptance goes.<BR/> <BR/>Now, some/most "self-acceptance" guidance might/would leave out the identifying and evaluating steps - because, after all, the goal is to accept yourself Exactly How You Are - without applying standards or any other crap like that. However, I am relaying to you the process that worked best for me to reach some level of self-acceptance. These are the baby steps that got me moving in the right direction. After I was able to realize that my goals had been shaped by my desire for acceptance by others, I was able to acknowledge what I had called "self-acceptance" in the past was pure bull shit. One example of this is that my career goals had reflected more of what my aunt and ex-boyfriend valued in a career than what I valued. <BR/> <BR/>So, the identifying and evaluating steps are part of deconstruction. <BR/> <BR/>Another tool I use is catchy phrases that remind me that I am in control of accepting myself because I make choices about my behavior. "Be who you want to become" is one such phrase. When confronted with a choice, think about this person who you so desperately want to become (this simplistic person)...what would he do? Do that. Then accept yourself. Accept that sometimes you will choose to do something other than what your "ideal" self would choose. Accept that sometimes you will make all of the "ideal" choices and still feel shitty at the end of the day. Some days you just feel shitty. Accept that you are human, thus you are sensitive, emotional, fallible, vulnerable, delicate, hard, strong, capable, demanding, bitchy, humorous, and intelligent all at the same time. There are no limitations on who you are or who you can be, other than a lack of vision and creativity, and a sense of adventure, which you definitely have. <BR/> <BR/>Do not set such strong boundaries for the behaviors you expect out of yourself. For instance, if you expect a "voluntarily simplistic" person will find ways to work out outside, don't hate yourself for opting to run on a treadmill when it is 10 degrees F with a -6F windchill (personal experience). Focus more upon the behavior that feels right, that you feel connected to. Then, you will begin to accept yourself.<BR/> <BR/>My comment about trying to fit into a community ties into this practice. Many people who practice "voluntary simplicity" or have similar lifestyle philosophies have very different value systems and beliefs that they bring to their practices. However, the underlying goal of openness and acceptance seems to prevail over value clashes (in my experience). Thus, this community will be open to discussing how you feel about watching and enjoying the girls on the mechanical bull, rather than just writing you off as a jerk/asshole/etc. Likewise, we will join you in a conversation about non-PC topics, rather than repeating the "PC" mediaspeak like an autobot. (I try not to take those personal jabs at you in my comments, I apologize if anything came across that way.) However, perhaps you always felt like you were able to fit in, and you do not connect with my discussion here. I suspect on some level you felt that was a false "fitting in" if you are so anxious to take such drastic measures in your life, but I could be wrong.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>The point I am making about community is this: When you care less about fitting into a particular community and focus more on accepting yourself, you will find that you fit in better. I am not sure if this is because when you are "being yourself" you tend to accept yourself more and thus you just feel like you fit in better. Perhaps you do actually fit in better. Or, because you tend to attract people who are more fluid, like you, they more fluidly accept you. That is to say, they do not demand that you wear certain clothes, eat certain foods or automatically turn away from hot girls on mechanical bulls. There are some people in these communities who demand everyone be vegan, just like they have choosen. I call those people wolves in sheeps clothing because they are as group-mentality-oriented as the materialistic jerks you are seeking to dissociate from. Feeling like you fit in better could mean that you are happier, thus you are more fun to be around and therefore, your community desires your presence, which makes you feel accepted. It could be anything.<BR/> <BR/>Self-awareness is required for self-acceptance, in my experience. Striving to acquire both is recommended...why wait any longer?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Like anything else that is worth the effort, your enthusiasm for trying will wax and wane. Accept that, too.<BR/><BR/><BR/>When you make a mistake on your journey, remember that you are not an expert. When you strive out in a new way, you are like a child who is learning to walk. If a two-year old boy who just started to walk stumbled and fell, would you yell at him for being stupid? Would you say "who the hell do you think you are? You can't walk!" ? Nope. You would pick him up in your arms and hug him until he was not so scared. Then, you would set him back down and let him try again. Be that gentle with yourself as you proceed on this journey. Pick yourself up and give your soul a hug when you need to. Then, after that moment, put yourself back on the path and keep moving forward. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Keep pushing and keep your chin up.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Jill<BR/><BR/><BR/>P.S. While I wrote these comments for you, I would appreciate some response. A nod in the comments is sufficient or a direct response is okay, too.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-39496695966024803302009-03-31T16:16:00.000-04:002009-03-31T16:16:00.000-04:00I know we have totally different lives right now. ...I know we have totally different lives right now. (I'm currently a crazy Catholic stay-at-home mother who tries to cram in 3 hours of prayer a day.)<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to affirm that the Ivy College experience SUCKED in terms of male/female relations. I graduated from Smith. The whole PC feminism thing was so intense. I didn't even figure out how damaged my basic understanding of masculinity was until I found I was pregnant with my first son. Thank heavens a good marriage is healing!<BR/><BR/>So thanks for putting up with the intense feminism critique. I'm sure I would have been one of those posters five years ago!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14927751448670046314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-71816201606047622752009-03-27T09:09:00.000-04:002009-03-27T09:09:00.000-04:00Non-TV watching anon. here. Thanks for responding ...Non-TV watching anon. here. Thanks for responding to my comments, this was an interesting dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Just one more point re: television. I think not watching TV is one of the better things I've done. It's like vegan food. At first a little bland, and then your senses just heighten and you go, WOW. What was I thinking earlier? Bad TV wherever you happen to watch it (friend's house, hotel rooms) becomes really bad TV, and good stuff becomes really good. You sort of begin to tell the wheat from the chaff. <BR/><BR/>I had been on a TV fast for I think two years when I saw a bunch of good films (e. g. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), and a movie like that can haunt you for days when you're not constantly putting "new stuff" from the media into your working memory. You mull it over and it is really an experience. And you do want to choose what it is you watch, because you have to. It's not just something in the background. You are a more active viewer.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to the movies to watch Slumdog today, and there are also DVDs and web television obviously, if you want it. But the difference is as I said that you are in better control of what you see because you pick and choose and you have to be active about it. You also don't get exposed to as much advertising, which I can tell you is really great. <BR/><BR/>Good luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-39992056086486496122009-03-27T00:02:00.000-04:002009-03-27T00:02:00.000-04:00What, I go away for a little while and when I come...What, I go away for a little while and when I come back, here you are trying to stir up controversy! I have to agree with Debi. I choose to see past the "sexist" front you put up and look instead at what's behind it, and honestly, what I see behind it is a bit of fear, perhaps more than a bit (I know lots about fear). What you're afraid of is something only you can answer, but just like those girls who spend their time getting guys all hot and bothered with their bull-riding antics, I think you may be hiding (or maybe in denial about?) what's really going on inside you. <BR/><BR/>Or not. My degree is in English, not psychology. But I don't think you are sexist. At least not any more sexist than anyone. And I don't find your posts about your "love" life offensive. A bit sad maybe (c'mon, you know the sadness is there), but not offensive. If I did, that would make me sexist;-)<BR/><BR/>Glad to be reading your antics again--looking forward to the reveal of your teaser post.<BR/><BR/>peace,<BR/><BR/>amy (square peg)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-80120858468194610082009-03-26T16:14:00.000-04:002009-03-26T16:14:00.000-04:00For the record, I really hope I am not coming acro...For the record, I really hope I am not coming across as lecturing. I deeply believe in what I am saying, but fully understand that each person is finding their way.<BR/><BR/>I am not ‘demanding’ (as if I could) agreement. I am merely trying to flesh out an understanding of these things from a deeply Catholic perspective and sharing that as best I can.<BR/><BR/>I think I’ve said most of what I can, and to go too much further would require us to be in greater agreement on some fundamentals for it to make much sense.<BR/> <BR/>I’ll only offer a few more brief comments in this thread and then probably leave it at that for now.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and btw…Kymbar, I know you are saying it’s not kindness, but the truth you are saying, but I don’t think you could have written anything more touching than you did. Thank You.<BR/><BR/><I>I never met those girls that night.</I><BR/><BR/>This just isn’t true. You didn’t walk up and introduce yourself, but you most certainly met them.<BR/><BR/>You encountered them to enough of an extent that you took pictures of them. They most assuredly saw you doing so and noticed you and the others in the crowd.<BR/><BR/>It’s undeniable that even though no words were exchanged, your photographing, and their behavior caused a ‘meeting’ to occur. No matter how shallow, you exchanged and shared in an experience with them.<BR/><BR/><I>Not a one. From what you are saying is that even though (1) I had no intention of meeting them, let alone start a relationship with them; 2) did not have a chance to talk to them; and (3) did not know them, </I><BR/><BR/>I mean this in a charitable way that might be hard to convey in the written word...but I think you might be trying to fool yourself a little bit.<BR/><BR/>From your original post…<BR/><BR/><B><I>To cap off the evening, we headed down to Double Deuce to watch drunk girls ride a mechanical bull at a slow rhythmic pace.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Maybe I am misreading that, but you seemed to indicate that your intent was to go there to watch drunk girls riding mechanical bulls. You seem to say you were <B>looking</B> for a sexually titillating experience.<BR/><BR/>You sure seem to have gone with the express intention of doing what you say you had no intention of doing above. :-)<BR/><BR/>Maybe not to meet those particular girls, but you seemed intent on meeting girls LIKE them…any girls like them would have done. And that’s the problem...at that point they are mannequins performing for the men in the room…interchangeable…without any recognition of their person-hood.<BR/><BR/>That's what you indicate you went looking for.<BR/><BR/><I>(I should NOT have been sexually titillated by their sexuality. </I><BR/><BR/>Should not have been titillated isn’t what I’d say…that’s impossible. If I were there, it would be unavoidable for me too.<BR/><BR/>What I am suggesting is that by being in that kind of place in the first place, you were asking to be sexually aroused by anonymous women. That is an act that contributes to the objectification being discussed...it didn't just happen by accident (or so it seems).<BR/><BR/><I>I understand your point and agree with it to an extent. But I just think that is just too extreme.</I><BR/><BR/>I understand that…if I’d have written this to myself 10 years ago, I’d have said the same thing. :-D<BR/><BR/><I>Even if you are right, then I submit that the freedom to enjoy sexual play (such as in being titillated by a girl across a room) is important enough that it trumps any secondary harm that might result from that sexual play. This is kind of how Mills treats freedom of speech. <BR/>The benefits of allowing free speech to develop outweighs any negative effects resulting from affording ‘negative’ speech (KKK, Nazism, hate groups, etc…) a place in public discourse.</I><BR/><BR/>I couldn’t agree more with you about free speech. Along with freedom of religion, it’s the constitutional right I hold most dear. I am not suggesting that you or any woman must be denied the freedom to do what you describe. I am talking about the choices we make, not imposing my beliefs.<BR/><BR/><I>And here is where we differ further. Sex can, in fact, involve “taking from or using the other person.” </I><BR/><BR/>I agree…it can…I am suggesting it shouldn’t. I've participated in both ethos under discussion. I do know what you are describing, and at least from my own experience, it is truly a pale imitation of what is possible in a sexual relationship.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it is not good for the other person…ever. It might feel unbelievably pleasurable, empowering, and a whole host of other positive things that apply to the short term. But in the long run it will never be good emotionally for either of the parties partaking.<BR/> <BR/>You get that in other areas of your life (see your description at the beginning of this comment), but I think you have yet to apply the same thought process to sexuality.<BR/><BR/>Most people never break free from what you describe above.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, most people never break free from thinking about sex in terms you’ve laid out. <BR/><BR/>I'm suggesting the same applies to both areas, and the consequences are similar in both areas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-37674841993675625652009-03-26T13:46:00.000-04:002009-03-26T13:46:00.000-04:00@Kymber,No worries. I actually received Steve’s e...@Kymber,<BR/><BR/>No worries. I actually received Steve’s email today. If you would like to communicate with Steve in the future send me a quick email and I will share his email with you.<BR/><BR/>@Steve,<BR/><BR/>“What we do in such situation has an effect on both the other person and ourselves whether we realize it or not. Such behavior forms habits in the way we think and in turn the way we act. In order to participate in it, you must by necessity dehumanize the other person and turn them into a sexual object for you viewing. We can not do that on a regular basis without side effects. Likewise, allowing that to be done to oneself will also not go without consequences.”<BR/><BR/>Here, I absolutely agree with you Steve. This, I feel, is the heart of where we share a great deal of common ground. Not only have I always understood this intuitively, I have lived the effects you describe, though not in the sexual realm. By the time I came to my senses, I had “objectified” (using your own terminology with little precision here) everyone in my life and had allowed myself to become an object. All my person-hood had been lost. I was lost. Embracing voluntary simplicity allowed me to start reclaiming my person-hood and to see people around me as human beings again.<BR/><BR/> “If you are saying that you want no meaningful relationships at all, I would say that is clearly your choice, but it is also inhuman. We are built for relationship in body, mind and spirit, and the inability to form meaningful connections is not a thing to be sought after. But I don’t think that’s necessarily what you are saying.”<BR/><BR/>Not saying I do not want any meaningful relationships. My larger point is that we aren’t always looking for one, whether by choice, time in our lives, or circumstances. I never met those girls that night. Not a one. From what you are saying is that even though (1) I had no intention of meeting them, let alone start a relationship with them; (2) did not have a chance to talk to them; and (3) did not know them, I should NOT have been sexually titillated by their sexuality. I understand your point and agree with it to an extent. But I just think that is just too extreme.<BR/><BR/>“There is really no such thing as sexual freedom as you describe it…The moment you engage in physical touch the hormones that form real connections begin to be released in our brains…Our bodies are made so that even a fleeting sexual encounter impacts us deeply, and connects us to the other party in very powerful ways, whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not.”<BR/><BR/>I think we might have different definitions of “sexual freedom.” You might very well be right; I honestly never studies sexual biochemistry. My point is that a woman should have the freedom to be sexually alluring while a man should have the freedom to respond to her. <BR/><BR/>“Sexual freedom to me is to be in a deeply connected relationship to such an extent that I can utterly trust my spouse, and be naked (in both body and soul) and unashamed before her. To be so utterly trusting that I can expose my deepest self to her without fear of being used, and vice versa.”<BR/><BR/>This definitely goes outside my own definition of the term because it discounts any sexual interaction between two consenting adults who are not looking for a “deeply connected relationship,” “trust,” etc…Sometimes people want to be used while others are happy to use. And I submit this can be accomplished by emotionally healthy, consenting adults.<BR/><BR/>“Not every woman riding that mechanical bull that night had emotional insecurities. <BR/><BR/>I admitted as much, but do you know how to tell the difference? If not, then your participation may be wounding others unnecessarily.”<BR/><BR/>Even if you are right, then I submit that the freedom to enjoy sexual play (such as in being titillated by a girl across a room) is important enough that it trumps any secondary harm that might result from that sexual play. This is kind of how Mills treats freedom of speech. The benefits of allowing free speech to develop outweighs any negative effects resulting from affording ‘negative’ speech (KKK, Nazism, hate groups, etc…) a place in public discourse.<BR/><BR/>“But to be truly objectified is to be used, and I wouldn’t be able to accept that a person who is healthy in mind and spirit would really prefer to be used over being loved for their own sake…Sex can and should be gentle, but at times it can be hot, spontaneous, and well…sexy. But it should still always take place within the context of giving to the other person rather than taking from or using the other person…in my opinion.”<BR/><BR/>And here is where we differ further. Sex can, in fact, involve “taking from or using the other person.” This is not to say that gentle love making is not preferred. But I fear you might be denying something essential to human sexuality: the archetypical chase, the conquest of another, the “violence” that Sabina felt was necessary for any lovemaking to be meaningful (do read the Unbearable Lightness of Being).<BR/><BR/>@MP,<BR/><BR/>Wow, a Cathy reference. Never thought it would happen on this blog.<BR/><BR/>I think I can sum up 50% of my comments above by quoting something you wrote: “The bottom line is that none of us are the same.” How very true. Guys, let’s see if we can strive for a little civility and respect the fact that people have different points of view on all of this stuff.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-10670023135999149242009-03-26T13:08:00.000-04:002009-03-26T13:08:00.000-04:00@Jessica!Sweet! Nothing better than to turn my re...@Jessica!<BR/><BR/>Sweet! Nothing better than to turn my readers with daddy issues on.<BR/><BR/>@MP,<BR/> <BR/>“It's actually kids having horse sperm for breakfast, which makes it exponentially more hilarious.” <BR/><BR/>Ummm…yeah!<BR/><BR/>“just because someone's idea of comedy doesn't sit right with you, doesn't mean it has no social value or goes against the grain of the "Voluntary Simplicity" community, which some commenters have made sound like one of the most judgmental and hypocritical groups around.”<BR/><BR/>I would agree with that, though would add that we should probably emphasize the word “some.” I firmly believe that, on the whole, adherents of vol simplicity are anything but judgmental. After all, the inherent value of the movement is that it allows a person to simplify their lives in the ways that make sense for them. And I suspect that no two people will follow identical paths towards simplicity. <BR/><BR/>“I personally find humor that touches on such subjects (i.e. cancer, rape (OH HOW COULD I?!) and, yes, the homosexual tendencies of Family Guy's Stewie, the baby enjoying the horse sperm) not only funny, but quite healing. It's about being able to take the taboo or downright scary and punch it in its proverbial face. It's being able to look at an often horrible uncontrollable experience and being able to tame it, make it less scary. At times, it's even empowering.” <BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree with you here, though, to be perfectly honest, my affinity for this type of humor also has a great deal to do with my hatred for the PC movement. I firmly believe that comedy that pushes the envelope reinforces the importance of free speech in our society. <BR/><BR/>@Kymber,<BR/><BR/>I don’t think MP is saying that rape is funny. I think her point is that humor often goes a long way towards conquering our fears of some of the most horrendous experiences. It might not be for everyone (and I think MP acknowledges this), but taboo humor (for lack of a better phrase) has a part to play in our culture. Maybe the issue is why it is so popular in the first place (Steve’s argument might fit in here), but for better or worse, this type of comedy is, in fact, immensely popular.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-80603782622206965782009-03-25T20:16:00.000-04:002009-03-25T20:16:00.000-04:00Wow, Jack.Have you ever known a woman who was just...Wow, Jack.<BR/>Have you ever known a woman who was just a FRIEND? Not a sex partner, not an associate, not a mom. A friend? Have you ever bothered to speak to an unattractive woman?<BR/>I think you treat women the way you do because it is the only way you know how to interact with them.<BR/>And very often, the women you seem to interact with don't know any other way to interact with a man.<BR/>They EXPECT to be objectified because it is all they have ever known. They think that is how things are supposed to be, and so do you.<BR/>That is very sad.<BR/>Steve G said what I wanted to say better than I can.<BR/>I just recommend you take the time to get to know an unattractive woman as a friend and a person.<BR/>Interesting discussion.Maitreyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00905210677201681381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-34061147076020927842009-03-24T16:30:00.000-04:002009-03-24T16:30:00.000-04:00I think the problem, Jack, is that you really have...I think the problem, Jack, is that you really haven't shown us more than perhaps fleeting moments in which you <I>don't</I> objectify women. Maybe there are lots of times when you deal with women on personal levels that reflect your deep understanding of them as individuals.<BR/><BR/>But that's not what you choose to share here. What you choose to share here, in regard to the women you encounter, is pretty uniform. And pretty sad. Why sad? Because it doesn't reflect any understanding that the women you encounter are people, or that the way in which you treat them has an effect. You may have no way of knowing what that effect is--but I don't see any awareness that you're just looking at what you can get from an encounter, regardless of the other person.<BR/><BR/>Your actions do affect others, and they do send a message. I don't see that you understand that, beyond lip service.<BR/><BR/>Get past the things. Look at how you treat and interact with people. That's a much bigger deal, ultimately, than how much your furniture cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-12764188289443965362009-03-23T22:48:00.000-04:002009-03-23T22:48:00.000-04:00kymber--Well, I had no intention of this getting n...<B>kymber--</B><BR/><BR/>Well, I had no intention of this getting nasty, and I do believe I was respectful in my original posting, which, um, wasn’t even addressed to you, but since you specifically threw the first proverbial stone by disqualifying my “cleverness,” which admittedly suffers in the category of math (I am a woman, after all –- *rimshot!*), I must retaliate. Although, unlike you, I will keep it respectful considering I DON'T KNOW YOU and, ergo, do not know your degree of cleverness. Magically, however, you seem to know mine. Even more miraculously, apparently you're the arbiter of what's funny and what's not. And here I thought, like ALL OTHER SUBJECTIVE IDEAS, it was up to each individual beholder. Silly me.<BR/><BR/>What I’m getting at here is that while you may find the comic strip Cathy to be to your liking (just guessing), I happen to prefer Sarah Silverman, a comedian who's had successful bits dealing with such “out of line” topics as cancer, rape and (gasp!) even AIDS. She also tells a damn fine fart joke. And judging from the fact that she's made a good living on her jokes, I don't believe I'm alone in finding her and her material, which I can safely deduce you would find “not even remotely close to funny,” wickedly hilarious. <BR/><BR/>But the popularity of any given comic isn't even what's important here. What I’m trying to get at, and perhaps didn’t do the best job at the first time around, is that humor is different for everyone. Now, I understand this concept may be difficult for someone so seemingly judgmental (at least when it comes to my thoughts) to understand, but humor is <I>subjective</I>. To that end, while I may think Carrot Top is ridiculous, I can at least respect the fact that some people somehow enjoy him. Well, sorta. He’s pretty objectively annoying. (It’s a joke, Carrot Top lovers. Chillax.)<BR/><BR/>But I digress. The bottom line is that none of us are the same. And I truly pity you if you can’t recognize that. Even more so, I feel sorry for you if you apply this same kind of stringent viewpoint you seem to have on humor to wider aspects of your life. Closed-mindedness and a willing inability to at least <I>want</I> to try to understand why others may view things differently than you is what causes so much of the strife we see in the world today. Rarely are things so black and white, especially when dealing with people.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, and I know this is getting ludicrously long (and for that, Jack, I do apologize), I want to give you a personal perspective about how it might be possible for someone to find what you believe is “no joke” territory to be funny. Maybe this will help us find some common ground. You asked, “How dare I” laugh at a joke pertaining to rape? Not that this gives me a greater right to laugh more than anyone else, but I’m a woman in my twenties who’s had an unfortunate experience. While I certainly didn’t find my experience funny, nor that of any of my friends who’ve unfortunately gone through similar situations funny, humor that deals with the subject has helped me (and, I suspect many others) deal with those situations and move on. Furthermore, you wonder how can a person joke about cancer? Well, when my dad died of melanoma, humor helped get my family and I through those terrible months. Again, I suspect I’m not alone here. But like I said, even if a person hasn’t gone through personal stuff like that, humor that preys on the macabre sides of life can still be funny, even if you <I>personally</I> don’t get it, appreciate it or understand it.<BR/><BR/>Finding humor even in the darkest corners of humanity isn't a crime, in my opinion, but a gift. But like I said a gazillion times, we’re all different so I don’t expect everyone to agree. I just wish those who disagree wouldn’t be so short-sighted, judgmental and dismissive to retort with a simple attack on my intelligence. That’s just kind of pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I still wish you all the best,<BR/><BR/>MPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-70835880932956313472009-03-23T22:46:00.000-04:002009-03-23T22:46:00.000-04:00I would actually extend it further by saying that ...<I>I would actually extend it further by saying that some of what you would term objectification need not be something to bemoan in the first place. Even if it’s not possible to objectify another and have a lasting and meaningful relationship, so what? What if you don’t want a meaningful relationship in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>But these things do not happen in a vacuum. What we do in such situation has an effect on both the other person and ourselves whether we realize it or not. Such behavior forms habits in the way we think and in turn the way we act. <BR/><BR/>In order to participate in it, you must by necessity dehumanize the other person and turn them into a sexual object for you viewing. We can not do that on a regular basis without side effects. Likewise, allowing that to be done to oneself will also not go without consequences.<BR/><BR/>These influences/consequences we suffer from such behavior (whether we are on the giving or the receiving end) will have a huge impact on all other relationships we try to build. They will work against us when it comes to building other meaningful relationships that we might <B>want</B> to build.<BR/><BR/>If you are saying that you want no meaningful relationships at all, I would say that is clearly your choice, but it is also inhuman. <BR/><BR/>We are built for relationship in body, mind and spirit, and the inability to form meaningful connections is not a thing to be sought after. But I don’t think that’s necessarily what you are saying.<BR/><BR/><I>There is a place for sexual freedom, a place where meaningful relationships might be fleeting or nonexistent</I><BR/><BR/>There is really no such thing as sexual freedom as you describe it. Even the science of relationships bears this out. <BR/><BR/>The moment you engage in physical touch the hormones that form real connections begin to be released in our brains. <BR/><BR/>This happens all during sexual intercourse, and in particular when orgasm occurs. <BR/><BR/>All during these actions, the most powerful of bonding hormones, Oxytocin, is released and has been shown to immediately promote pair bonding. <BR/><BR/>Our bodies are made so that even a fleeting sexual encounter impacts us deeply, and connects us to the other party in very powerful ways, whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not.<BR/><BR/>We can pretend that is not the case, but it won’t make it so, and again…it won’t be without consequence.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I think the term sexual freedom can be viewed in many ways. It need not mean sexual license. <BR/><BR/>Sexual freedom to me is to be in a deeply connected relationship to such an extent that I can utterly trust my spouse, and be naked (in both body and soul) and unashamed before her. To be so utterly trusting that I can expose my deepest self to her without fear of being used, and vice versa. <BR/><BR/>THAT is sexual freedom. It need not be prudish, but it must be deeply personal.<BR/><BR/><I>Not every woman riding that mechanical bull that night had emotional insecurities.</I> <BR/><BR/>I admitted as much, but do you know how to tell the difference? If not, then your participation may be wounding others unnecessarily.<BR/><BR/><I>Sometimes, all a person wants is to be objectified by others willing to objectify. </I><BR/><BR/>People may indeed act that way, but I would suggest that what everyone is really looking for is acceptance and to be loved for their own sake.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes people are so desperate for that acceptance that they will buy into even a counterfeit to get at least a fake version of it.<BR/><BR/>But to be truly objectified is to be used, and I wouldn’t be able to accept that a person who is healthy in mind and spirit would really prefer to be used over being loved for their own sake.<BR/><BR/>I want to be clear here, this does not mean that sex must be some sterile act with harps playing in the background, or with a clinical approach. <BR/><BR/>Sex can and should be gentle, but at times it can be hot, spontaneous, and well…sexy. But it should still always take place within the context of giving to the other person rather than taking from or using the other person…in my opinion.<BR/><BR/><I>And, as it often happens, it is in the mists of this rough and tumble world of sexual conquest that that we feel the most human.</I><BR/><BR/>To be truly human is to participate in that part of ourselves that is different from all other creatures on the planet. It is to be able to freely make a gift of ourselves to the other, and to receive them as gift in return. It is to be totally self donative, rather than to conquer the other.<BR/><BR/>We are made to love and serve one another, and it is only in that capacity that we can be most human.<BR/><BR/>The sexual act can be part of that, but I’d argue that conquering someone else (sexually or otherwise) is not at all when we are most human, but when we are at our most animal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-31101090928224005362009-03-23T20:46:00.000-04:002009-03-23T20:46:00.000-04:00@SteveIt sounds like you have a ton of fans out th...@Steve<BR/><BR/>It sounds like you have a ton of fans out there. If you feel comfortable, post your email here and or send me an email. I will then share it with anyone who requests it. <BR/><BR/>@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>“Connecting to a person isn't just seeing them in a moment. It's trying to understand what brought both of you to that moment. Ignoring them as a person, though, and considering only what you take from the moment, is objectifying them.”<BR/><BR/>Do check out my response to Steve to this very issue above. I agree with you, to an extent. There should be room for certain human activities/endeavors where objectification, as Steve defines the term, to take place. <BR/><BR/>@Michelle,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. Glad to see you’ve joined us.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-9501411849135553662009-03-23T20:40:00.000-04:002009-03-23T20:40:00.000-04:00@Jill M,“I suspect you are reaching a sort of cros...@Jill M,<BR/><BR/>“I suspect you are reaching a sort of crossroads within yourself. Your responses to the comments come across as very defensive to me. Against whom are you defending? None of the comments attacked you as a person - rather, they commented on the content/substance of your post. In fact, most of the comments to which you responded defensively were constructive.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t think I’ve been overly defensive at all. I’ve tried to be as dispassionate and objective as I could be. But that is just an opinion. As for whom I was “defending” myself from…well, here are some of the comments I received to this post. Now, as you read this, tell me whether I was even-handed and objective in my responses:<BR/> <BR/>“But if you're not sexist where are the jokes that make fun of abused men or children? Oh, I see - you don't think abused kids and guys are funny the same way abused women are!<BR/>MJ”<BR/>----<BR/>“I'm not sure if you'd demonstrate your belief in racial equality by putting a cartoon lynching on your page, but if so then I guess the picture of a woman being spanked and those extra jokes at the end are appropriate. Way to make an enlightened point!...You're not an asshole. You're a stereotype…I'm also operating under the assumption you're potentially aware of how ridiculous this post is and are more about the argument than the solution (or any kind of evolution). Missing your day job a little?<BR/>---<BR/>“I get it, all the mean women hurt poor widdle Jack and now you've got walls! How exciting! And women are supposed to throw themselves at your walls and prove how they would never hurt poor widdle Jack and if they don't do it good enough they're man eating bitches or annoying nags. But dude, its not that exciting. Get the fuck over yourself.”<BR/><BR/>@Donna,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment. Nope, not EXACTLY trying to be provocative. The post was in response to this question of whether some of the blog posts have had sexist undertones. I sort of feel as if part of the reason that feeling may be out there is because I just don’t pull punches and I hate being PC on this blog. The jokes made the latter point on my behalf. <BR/><BR/>@Kymber,<BR/><BR/>“Jack - you need to re-read Steve G.'s words and really think about all of this!”<BR/><BR/>I have. My response to Steve is right up above.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-61763585925757675452009-03-23T20:26:00.000-04:002009-03-23T20:26:00.000-04:00@John,I though the last three comments were rather...@John,<BR/><BR/>I though the last three comments were rather insightful and brought a lot to the table. <BR/><BR/>@SteveG<BR/><BR/>“People with great marriages and great relationships may have accepted much of the wider culture, but with respect to those specific great relationships, it simply is not possible to objectify another and have a lasting and meaningful relationship.”<BR/><BR/>I think this is what I was trying to get at. That not everything in popular culture reflects a mindset of objectification. I would actually extend it further by saying that some of what you would term objectification (i.e., watching a girl riding a mechanical bull in a sexual manner as per my prior post) need not be something to bemoan in the first place. Even if it’s not possible to objectify another and have a lasting and meaningful relationship, so what? What if you don’t want a meaningful relationship in the first place.<BR/><BR/>There is a place for sexual freedom, a place where meaningful relationships might be fleeting or nonexistent, a place where a guy can observe an attractive woman purposely show off her sexuality without any scruples and/or moral judgment. Not every woman riding that mechanical bull that night had emotional insecurities. Not every guy staring at those women was a sexual pervert. Not every person has to be a gentle lover. Not every couple needs and/or wants to “make love” all the time. Sometimes, all a person wants is to be objectified by others willing to objectify. And, as it often happens, it is in the mists of this rough and tumble world of sexual conquest that that we feel the most human. <BR/><BR/>“The overarching question for me again is…'Is what is being done in keeping with the dignity of the person it is being done to?'”<BR/><BR/>Chris Rock using dirty words isn’t truly turning anyone into an object and using them. From the description above, Lisa Lampanelli abusing an old person in the audience is…even if that person bought a ticket and asked for it.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t see the distinction between Lisa and Chris. And even if there was, Lisa is an insult comic. Insult comics have a long tradition in American culture (Ron Rickles, Jackie Mason, etc…). People who buy those tickets do so with the intention of being insulted. I just don’t buy that it is immaterial whether a person WANTS to be objectified in the first place. By your own standards it would be immoral to attend, participate and/or enjoy a Friars Club roast. I’m sorry but I just don’t agree with that. <BR/><BR/>“The first time you ponder that one of the drunk ‘girls’ on the bull might be there, and doing those things because she’s trying to hide from a past where she’s been valued for her T&A from her earliest days, and is out getting wasted because she’s trying to dull the pain of an abusive relationship...you’ll have a hard time looking at any other woman in that same scenario quite the same way again.”<BR/><BR/>But Steve, how do you KNOW that that’s the reason those girls were on that mechanical bull in the first place. Is there no place for sexual play in your ideal world? On the other hand, maybe you are suggesting that just because SOME girls might be hiding from their past in the way you are describing a person should be ashamed of seeing these particular girls as sexual beings. While I can appreciate this argument a whole lot more, I just don’t agree with that view. It’s like saying a couple should have some reservations about engaging in rough sex because there is such a thing as rape in this world. There is NOTHING wrong with looking at an attractive woman and being sexually aroused by her.<BR/><BR/>@Jill M.,<BR/><BR/>“A little attention-hungry, are we, Jack?”<BR/><BR/>I don’t see it that way Jill. Treated this issue a bit above so welcome follow-up comments if you like.<BR/><BR/>“Keep working toward that acceptance of yourself without judgment, Jack. It is incredibly difficult to maintain, but attempting to accept yourself, and limited success in doing so, is ultimately very rewarding.”<BR/><BR/>Jill, do repost. It would be great if you could unpack this paragraph a bit. I would say that I have not been able to accept myself at all recently. Quite the opposite. Still very much angry with myself for all the stupid things I have been doing over the past several years. Maybe once I deal with the disappointment and displaced anger I will be able to accept the rest of me.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-30053468531733352202009-03-23T17:36:00.000-04:002009-03-23T17:36:00.000-04:00(Jack - hogging your comments section again - i sh...(Jack - hogging your comments section again - i should really get a life eh? and sorry if this post is not in keeping to the original spirit of the post...i just had to respond to Steve G)<BR/><BR/>Steve G - I think that I speak for a lot of others when I say that those are not kind words. Just the frank truth, my friend. Your words are incredibly inspiring and we could all learn so much from your words - thank you for always sharing such lovely and beautiful truths. Thank you for always bringing us back to gentleness and thoughtfulness! <BR/><BR/>And when you say that you are "absolutely dedicated to your wife and children"...oh Steve...how much more could we all learn? Please always keep commenting here on Jack's blog. We have so much to learn from your gentle ways. <BR/><BR/>It has been so long since I encountered a true hero...you are like balm for the soul!<BR/><BR/>I completely understand why you do not have time for a blog...maybe later in life when your children have grown - you will find time. And you will have even more experience to share with us then! Woohoo!<BR/><BR/>As for now...please don't sell yourself short. You ooze creativity with every sentence...you are just being humble...as would be expected from such a man!<BR/><BR/>Steve - I was baptized Salvation Army, attended catechism classes from Grades primary to Grade 2 in a Catholic School (was not allowed to take my first Communion due to the fact that I ...umm...was not Catholic!), have a Mother who is a Jehovah's Witness and an atheist father...and have studied the World's 7 major religions in-depth...and have come out of all of that as a non-denominational believer in GOD - but I say to you - you embody every beautiful tenant of the Catholic Faith. You are everything beautiful that the Catholic Church supports.<BR/><BR/>Please keep commenting here!kymberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02607117635648274823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-42803589136306774922009-03-23T17:11:00.000-04:002009-03-23T17:11:00.000-04:00@Anonymous,“I would agree with some of the other p...@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>“I would agree with some of the other people here, especially Steve, who by the way writes wonderfully.”<BR/><BR/>I agree. Steve’s analysis is thought-provoking.<BR/><BR/>“I also agree with someone who suggested that it seems you are trying to stir up trouble with this post, consciously or unconsciously. That's okay though. Just wondering... Knowing your readership and their "politics", why would you choose to write about this? Of course you're free to write what you will, but assuming that you are aware that some people would harshly reject your blog or you based on this piece, why would you choose to write it?”<BR/><BR/>Definitely not trying to “stir up trouble.” The post is as I wanted it to be and I would not change a word of it. <BR/><BR/>Going back to my prior comment (the one that is directed at all readers generally), if someone is legitimately offended by the cover image and/or the jokes included at the end then I’m not sure we are ever going to find common ground. Again, people have different tastes and not everyone needs to “get” or appreciate my particular brand of comedy. And to answer your question, the post was written after some readers voiced support for a post on this specific issue. <BR/><BR/>“So if you were to observe yourself, how differently are you doing now?”<BR/><BR/>That’s a good question. The honest answer is that I just don’t know. I’ve gone through a great deal of change over the past year and I still need to process everything before I would be in a position to think about an answer. Not to mention how hard it is to do an honest self-evaluation, particularly in the middle of so much transformation. The only thing I am sure about is that I am heading away from a place that I no longer value. <BR/><BR/>“Please just don't move forward hoping on any level that you can eventually get to a point where you will write about how "you've improved the lives of hundreds of disadvantaged families" “….Today Show and Oprah to talk about how Harvard lawyer leaves behind law and becomes XYZ so he can teach others how to do it." <BR/><BR/>I promise. I don’t know if this comes through enough on this blog but I have no real desire for publicity. I have no side agenda, no need to put up google ads or in any way market the blog in a certain way. If I did I wouldn’t have published this post in the first place. All I care about is exploring who I am and where I am going in the most honest way I can. <BR/><BR/>“So from my personal point of view, you just need to get going and DO something…”<BR/><BR/>The last couple of paragraphs of your comment are right on. I have come to a place in my life where a meaningful existence requires some sacrifice in the name of others. Plans are afoot. Wheels are turning. It just requires that I take one step at a time.<BR/><BR/>@Anonymous,<BR/>“I'm the one who wrote the really long comment.”<BR/><BR/>[Apologies in advance if I get this wrong, but given the great number of anon comments I will just have to assume you wrote the comment immediately following the one I just responded to]<BR/><BR/>“The intention was to highlight that your situation seems to call for some meaningful action as opposed to more analysis.”<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely right. I think that all the material entanglements I have been trying to disengage from (my house, my furniture, the job, etc…) have diverted attention from a proper “call to action” you so eloquently described in your previous comment. But that is ok. It’s sort of by design. A person can’t possibly focus on every single aspect of their lives all at once. The way it has turned out, I am almost to the point where this process of simplification has almost run its course with respect to the physical/material. Very soon, I will be able to turn my attention to an internal/emotional transformation that I hope will lead to a genuine “call to action.” But I have to complete the process in the way and on a timetable that makes sense to me. <BR/><BR/>"Having said that though, as long as a person can be caught in hearty, genuine laughter, s/he by definition does have a sense of humor, even if s/he's not laughing at the same things some other person laughs at. Correct?”<BR/><BR/>Absolutely correct. And just to clarify, identifying certain readers as being “sexually repressed and/or easily offended” as I do in this posts does not mean that I think any less of people who find this stuff not to their liking. As for whether the tone is off, I don’t believe so. Some of the other posts referenced in this post are pretty harsh but understandable in context. Nothing gentle about some of the issues explored there. <BR/><BR/>“A television fast is by the way one of the best things I ever did.”<BR/><BR/>You are talking to a person that admittedly watches too much TV. Not only do I suspect you are absolutely right, but I think I might be joining you sooner than you think.<BR/><BR/>@Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Lisa does take some getting used to. No question about that. But I will note that she is currently one of the most popular comics on the circuit and her last HBO special had the highest ratings for that network in a year. Also, prepare yourself…looks like she is getting her own show as well. <BR/><BR/>But hey, whoever said that this was high-class comedy I’m more on the Garrison Keillor side of comedy, but hey, once in a while a Lisa Lampanelli bit is hilarious!Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11140071411706781433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-30109138996824562002009-03-23T17:08:00.000-04:002009-03-23T17:08:00.000-04:00MP - you sound like you think that you might be cl...MP - you sound like you think that you might be clever - you're not! How dare you raise rape as a funny topic! How Dare You! <BR/><BR/>And Cancer is a bitch and we should treat it that way?!?!?<BR/>I think that cancer can be better summed up as a controlling husband who beats his wife so badly that she ends up with so many broken bones she eventually dies! That's what cancer is in my mind!<BR/><BR/>And none of that is even remotely close to funny!<BR/><BR/>I can't even be bothered to comment any further...you are so out of line!<BR/><BR/>Jack...this has gotten way out of hand...kymberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02607117635648274823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-57674579856692817762009-03-23T11:04:00.000-04:002009-03-23T11:04:00.000-04:00anon 12:49, et. al--"kids having sperm for breakfa...<B>anon 12:49, et. al--</B><BR/><BR/>"kids having sperm for breakfast"<BR/><BR/>It's actually kids having <I>horse</I> sperm for breakfast, which makes it exponentially more hilarious. <BR/><BR/>But in all seriousness, I wouldn't be so quick to write off humor that cuts deep at the mores of any given society just because you find it "distasteful" or offensive or just plain not funny. For instance, Andy Rooney leaves a bad taste in my mouth (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID! -- sorry.), but I still see the value in his often incoherent rants if not only because it's amusing to splice his first and last sentences and play <A HREF="http://gawker.com/394841/the-andy-rooney-game" REL="nofollow">"The Andy Rooney Game."</A><BR/><BR/>But I digress, just because someone's idea of comedy doesn't sit right with you, doesn't mean it has no social value or goes against the grain of the "Voluntary Simplicity" community, which some commenters have made sound like one of the most judgmental and hypocritical groups around. (On a sidenote, isn't true simplicity at its core really about rejecting societal pressure from all sides and instead looking within to find what makes <I>you</I> the individual happy? Not that Jack wants a book deal (in fact, I suspect he does not) but if you do, does that mean suddenly you're a Vol Sim societal outcast? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. But, whatever, this question is for another time, and, arguably, I have no concrete understanding of the rules of the "voluntary simplicity" movement, if it even is a movement, so perhaps said question should just be ignored altogether.) <BR/><BR/>But returning to the subject at hand, I believe the comedy espoused by the likes of Family Guy, Lisa Lampanelli, Chris Rock and even <A HREF="http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/49847/detail/" REL="nofollow">Betty White</A> (!), serves several purposes, which I will try to explain with as much brevity as possible (a task thus far I have failed at) after once again quoting the same aforementioned anonymous commenter and his views on Lampanelli:<BR/><BR/><I>"Unlike many Americans, the woman obviously does not have demented parents or grandparents or para or quadriplegic friends or family members. Or if she does, then I don't know what to say."</I><BR/><BR/>The commenter goes on to call her "extremely distasteful." Fair enough. But as someone who's been in some pretty extremely distasteful situations in the past as well as had family members and friends go through or die from diseases for which I wish so badly there was a cure, I personally find humor that touches on such subjects (i.e. cancer, rape (OH HOW COULD I?!) and, yes, the homosexual tendencies of Family Guy's Stewie, the baby enjoying the horse sperm) not only funny, but quite healing. It's about being able to take the taboo or downright scary and punch it in its proverbial face. It's being able to look at an often horrible uncontrollable experience and being able to tame it, make it less scary. At times, it's even empowering. Cancer is a bitch, why not treat it as such? So is racism, sexism, age-ism (sp?) and all the other -isms this society has tried so hard to pretend don't exist through propagating political correctness and denial. We need to acknowledge these things to grow as people and humor is a perfectly natural and healthful way to do so.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps more importantly, some of us personally wish to acknowledge these things to heal. Laughter, indeed, is the best medicine. And while you think it simply serves to hurt (and, true, if out of context or, perhaps simply due to personal taste, it certainly can), to many others, including myself, it can also serve to relieve tension and alleviate pain. <BR/><BR/>Here's to hoping we all end up on the paths we find most suitable for ourselves,<BR/><BR/>MPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-34638507921962686402009-03-23T09:19:00.000-04:002009-03-23T09:19:00.000-04:00Meh, I used to throw some leg back in my single da...Meh,<BR/> I used to throw some leg back in my single days so I'm certainly not one to judge.<BR/><BR/>BTW the pic you used is really hot.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think I have some daddy issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-46260207797521676192009-03-22T23:31:00.000-04:002009-03-22T23:31:00.000-04:00I'm new to your blog so I'm not sure if you are se...I'm new to your blog so I'm not sure if you are sexist or not but what I know so far is you are honest and honesty is rare... so I'll keep reading.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09738864691732179532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-1474556821196983562009-03-22T21:01:00.000-04:002009-03-22T21:01:00.000-04:00The first time you ponder that one of the drunk ‘g...<I>The first time you ponder that one of the drunk ‘girls’ on the bull might be there, and doing those things because she’s trying to hide from a past where she’s been valued for her T&A from her earliest days, and is out getting wasted because she’s trying to dull the pain of an abusive relationship...you’ll have a hard time looking at any other woman in that same scenario quite the same way again.</I><BR/><BR/>Very well put, Steve. This, by the way, is why my husband has no interest in going to strip clubs. He says that whenever he even sees one of the "documentaries" on HBO, the first thing he thinks about in regard to the women portrayed is "What did your dad do to you?"<BR/><BR/>Connecting to a person isn't just seeing them in a moment. It's trying to understand what brought both of you to that moment. Ignoring them as a person, though, and considering only what you take from the moment, is objectifying them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758230923722877355.post-23506027043940653482009-03-22T20:23:00.000-04:002009-03-22T20:23:00.000-04:00Kymber,Thank you so much for your kind words. The...Kymber,<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for your kind words. They mean so much to me. To know that what I write sometimes touches others is a great joy.<BR/><BR/>As for the blog, the reason is very simple...time. <BR/><BR/>I am absolutely dedicated to my wife and children (8, 5 & 3), and I've found that when I have had a blog in the past, being intemperate by nature, it ends up stealing too much of my time from them.<BR/><BR/>Also, I've learned over time that I write much more passionately when responding to others, rather than trying to come up with original content of my own. <BR/><BR/>Honestly, I am not very creative in that way, but usually find I have something to say when someone else gets the ball rolling. <BR/><BR/>So...commenting sparingly on a blog or two of interest, when time permits, has been the compromise I've worked out.<BR/><BR/>Hope that makes sense.<BR/><BR/>Gotta go read stories and put the munckins to bed now. :-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com